Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 472570)

Actually, that would require that you actually read the article.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 472509)

I like the video, and I like the fact it was leaked. Romney was dead already, so it's of no consequence. What it might do, however, is fan debate on who is a ward of the state and who isn't.

From where I'm sitting, the 47 who pay no income tax are hardly the only free riders mooching from the govt. What about our defense industry? They couldn't compete in a real free market. Sans Uncle Sam's gifting these "capitalists" contracts for billions of dollars worth of things we don't need, they'd contract to half their current size. What about banks? Sure, they paid TARP back. But that doesn't change the fact that they're wards of the state. Absent govt intervention, they were dead. They are, in every literal sense, "losers"... "failures." What about the box checkers who work in govt and do pay taxes, but suck a form of white collar welfare from the system - providing little, if anything, of value, while enjoying a generous salary and benefits at taxpayer cost? What about the auto unions, and the management of the auto companies? Is there any better definition of TBTF? What of big pharma - Bush's Mecidare Part D beneficiary?

The argument our govt needs to shrink isn't a GOP or Democrat one. It's a logical one. Increasingly, our cash flow schematic looks like this: Mix of borrowed money and tax revenue > Government > Crony capitalists and entitlement recipients. The only people who aren't dependent on the govt consuming their products are consumer tech gadget makers and the entertainment industry. Everybody else is dependent to some extent on government money. And the government overpays for almost everything it purchases. It overextends with entitlements, it wastes money on things it'll never need. It gets large companies hooked on big revenue streams they'd never receive if they had to sell exclusively in the private sector. It gets the entitlement class hooked on money for nothing. And the recipients of this largesse in turn do everything they can to corrupt the political processes to ensure they continue to receive the easy money on which they're now dependent. Can we cut entitlements? Never. Nobody can run on that platform. Can we get govt contracting under control so we're only buying what we need, rather than subsidizing industries that should shrink? Good luck getting donations if you try that.

Romney's right: A big part of this country will vote for whoever gives them things. It includes tens of millions of useless entitlement junkies. It also includes 80% of our big business "capitalists."

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 472512)

Romney is an arrogant douche, and he offered his criticism in a haughty manner. But even if he'd made the criticism tactfully, he'd be excoriated for it. Even when someone of far less means and advantages as Romney makes the criticism he's made, that person gets shredded.

There's a double standard at work. If I say I vote strictly based on taxes, it's okay to criticize me. But if say I vote strictly based on which politician will give me more benefits, I am beyond criticism.

These things seem identical. In both instances, a person is doing something solely for self gain. Both are simply acting rationally. The latter gets a pass because he's less fortunate, or has less power. There's an obvious but never discussed underdog handicapping at work.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 472572)

read this last bit in a mirror?

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 472518)

This was leaked too early. It'll be forgotten by then. The avalanche of Koch Bros./Adelson money coming is going to shift the debate several times. (And Romney will need ungodly sums of it to overcome a terminal case of foot-in-mouth disease.)

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 472522)

I love when people say, "I don't want a handout. I just want an opportunity."

Who doesn't have an opportunity? If you're alive, in a free country, you have an opportunity. Now, economic forces may be working against you, and it may be tough, but that doesn't mean you don't have an opportunity.....

When someone says "I want the govt to give me an opportunity," what they are actually saying is, "I want the government enact policies that ease my path." That's asking for something. It's saying, "Rather than attack the problem myself, I have concluded the problem is beyond me, and I need the assistance of a rulemaker with power over the society in which I live to tilt the table a bit so I can do better than I am."

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 472563)

Duane Allman, Richard Nixon, and Tom Wolfe, I think, but your point is well-taken.

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 472590)

I disaree. This may be about that for some people. I am disgusted by the overwhelming arrogance of the asshole. Almost half the country and he says "Fuck 'em, they aren't even in the club." I am also criticizing him because he and his business associates have benefited so much in the last few years from government largesse that I keep waiting for God's Iron Fist to strike him down every time he calls someone else a parasite or moocher.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 472601)

With Romney, the amazing thing is that he's ONLY condescending and abusive toward 47% of the people. Remember, this is a guy who thinks of biglaw partners as the hired help who ought to eat in the kitchen.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 472591)

I only throw shit over on the fashion board. I actually used to come over here to talk seriously about politics and listen to people's opinions about new devolopments and/or what they thought would happen in the general election. I realized this place is typically worse than me on my absolute worst day. It's my fault really. I need to learn to pick through the bullshit for the few posts I actually value. And not respond to posts like yours in which you clearly just want Ty to pay attention(!) to you.

TM

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 472605)

I do like when Ty pays attention to me.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 472606)

Hi Hank!

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 472606)

Why does someone need to stand up for the R nut jobs?

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 472608)

I'm a litigator. i don't answer hypos. But I will say that you all seem to want some of the few socks here that are actively there actually think about their opinions to post about the nut jobs

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 472604)

he's from Michigan. it isn't an economic conceit, it is a geographic conceit.
"Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circum fuckistium spice." meaning, from the vernacular, "yeah we've a beautiful peninsula, but stay the fuck out."